A Secular And Christian Review Of The Movies:
“Man From Earth” And “Man From Earth Holocene”

By David J. Stewart | June 2019

       From a secular viewpoint, the film is a brilliant masterpiece of film making! They had the perfect cast of characters, a tremendous science-fiction script, and didn't go overboard with anything (except blaspheming the Son of God). I have watched it several dozen times, and am often drawn back to it, because it is interesting. I am an avid science-fiction fan, and I know a good quality movie when I see one. Unfortunately, the sequel is so bad that I doubt if I'll ever watch it again! I love that the original MAN FROM EARTH Blu-ray that I bought plays over and over and over, without having to start the film each time. I actually bought 3 of them: the DVD of the first film, then I rebought the first film on Blu-ray and then the sequel. Unfortunately, the new set of disks doesn't repeatedly play, so I stick with the original disk.

From a Christian viewpoint, as a born-again Christian since age 13 (I am now 52), I cringe whenever I hear anyone curse in God's name, as they do a couple times in the first film, including by the character Edith who professes to be a Christian. I don't like that element of the film, yet they don't go over-the-top with it, as they do in the sequel. Sadly, that is just the Satanic nature of Hollywood films. The film introduces the fictional theory that “Jesus” was really a caveman who lived 14,000 years, and after sharing some of his acquired wisdom learned over the millenniums, had to go into 2,000 years of hiding from would-be worshippers! The film blasphemes God throughout. One of the characters in the film (Harry) says that if he were God, “I would hide too if this was the best I could do” (inferring to the problems of the world). That is an evil thing to say about our good and holy God. Clearly, the film's writer is an atheist, and has no fear of God.

The movie goes much farther than merely toying with the idea that Jesus was a fraud—the film puts forth a blasphemous hypothesis—claiming that the story of the Babylonian wise men visiting Christ after His birth never happened; and that Jesus' hands and feet were not nailed to the cross (He was only tied to the cross); and that after being presumed dead Jesus performed a deep-breathing exercise, which he learned from Buddha, fooling everybody because he never really died. These blasphemous ideas are a mockery of the only begotten Son of God. Hollywood would never dare to blaspheme the Muslim god, Allah, in such a despicable manner. Only Jesus Christ is held in such disdain by the ungodly world (which evidences Christ's preeminence in history).

My Christian faith is solid, not threatened by alternative opinions or contrary religious beliefs. Albeit, to me the film desecrates something that is sacred; namely, Christianity. It would be like mocking your parents in a movie that portrays them as not really being married, or a fraud, which would offend any decent person. From that perspective, I don't like the message that the film projects. Yet, I am a total science-fiction buff, and love all science-fictions, so I still enjoy watching the film! I also hate booze (the consumption of alcohol) in all its aspects, but I still eat in restaurants that serve booze, because I still have to live. So I'll still watch a movie, even if it has elements that offend me to some degree, if the film is that good. Hollywood has always been wicked. All of Steven Spielberg's, Ridley Scott's and Jim Cameron's films take the Lord's name in vain, and I hate it as a Christian, but I still love their movie from a secular viewpoint.

The first film was written by a brilliant science-fiction writer, who also wrote the original Star Trek scripts, named Jerome Bixby (1923-1998). Kindly, whoever wrote the script for the sequel to Man From Earth is an awful writer with no imagination. As I mentioned, the second film (“Man From Earth Holocene”) is total GARBAGE! I hate the sequel with a passion!

Here's 20 Reasons Why I Give the Sequel TWO THUMBS DOWN:

1. Kindly, Vanessa Williams just doesn't fit the movie, and she way overacted her part in the film (especially in the opening scene). It is horrible acting in my humble opinion! I have nothing against Miss Williams, I just didn't like her acting at all in the sequel.
2. I also thought Vanessa Williams made a horrible girlfriend (Carolyn) for John Young (played by David Lee Smith, who is absolutely brilliant in both films). Kindly, with no racial intentions, Vanessa's ethnicity difference just didn't mix with David Lee Smith. It would have been 100% better had they used the original character of Sandy (played by Annika Peterson in both films). Annika was perfect for the role, which would have made sense to use, since John said in the first film that he could give her 10 years of his life. So if anything, John should have been breaking up with Annika in the squeal. Using Vanessa Williams makes no sense at all and helped ruin the second film. Please understand that I am critiquing the film, not the actors.
3. The use of a bunch of young teenagers ruined the second film completely. One of the things that made the first film successful was the casting of adults. The one modest college student was perfect in the first film. In the goofy sequel, the teenagers were immature, giddy, looking like a bunch of Beanie-boppers instead of a serious movie about a caveman who survived 14,000 years until present day.
4. The director of both films, Richard Schenkman, said that he wanted a colorblind cast, but that is not the best way to make a film. As a viewer, I strongly felt the pushing of a political agenda of race. You've got an Asian chick starring in the film, with multiple African Americans and Hispanics. I am sick of people crying “prejudice” whenever this point is brought up. Damn it, it's just my opinion. I simply don't enjoy watching a film when it has multi-ethnicity characters, which is clearly being promoted these weird days in America. I think they should have brought back all of the original cast, as much as possible. It is a shame that they left out Tony Todd in the sequel, who really helped make the first film a big success. Tony's acting was brilliant!
5. The lewd teenage girl seduction scene absolutely ruined the second film's quality. What a horrible script! What was the script writer thinking? Why did they include a slutty scene with a promiscuous whorish teenage girl in the film? What a retarded idea! She is wearing very raunchy attire, looking like a harlot. That ruined the film in my opinion, and I don't want to see awful scene again.
6. The multi-millionaire-looking giant home of the girlfriend of John Young (formerly John Oldman) is wrong for the film, way over the top. Who lives in a home like that who teaches on faculty at a college? It was too much over-the-top for the film and ruined it in my humble opinion. One of the things that made the first film so great and successful, was the simple worn-down rustic-looking cabin, located out in the middle of nowhere in rural California. I loved that in the first film.
7. The music score is not as good in the second film. The music in the first film (by my distant relative Mark H. Stewart) is brilliant!
8. The young teenage Caucasian boy (Philip played by Sterling Knight), who is obsessed as a professed “born-again” Christian in the film, is really crapping acting and scripting! Kindly, the youngster was totally wrong for the film. The scene when Philip got on his knees to worship John Young was poorly acted, weird to begin with, and just plain bad script.
9. I thought the clothing worn in the sequel by Art Jenkins (played by William Katt) didn't fit at all. Art looked goofy in my opinion, wearing bright vivid colors (purple pants). Are you serious? The second film reminded me of a clown circus rather than a serious sequel to a great movie. Why do they almost always ruin sequels? The Jason Bourne trilogy was brilliant in every film, which is rare. All subsequent related films were garbage! “Man From Earth Holocene” is really terrible!
10. The religious boy (Philip) stabbing John Young in the side with a big kitchen knife (to repeat the soldier jabbing Jesus with a spear into His right side on the cross) was just plain stupid. It doesn't make sense because John said in both films that he is “normal” in every way, just able to live indefinitely. In real life, a stab into the side with a giant kitchen knife would prove fatal. The scene itself was in poor taste, really bad scripting, and not something worth seeing. And then somehow (unclear in the film) John escapes from being duck-taped to a chair by Philip (after being stabbed). It's just idiotic! Philip disappears at the end of the film, leaving the viewer to wonder where he went. That was a really bad way to end a film. I cannot give a bad enough rating to the second film, it is really a big waste of time and money. No doubt, the sequel's producers made a financial killing merely because of the popularity of the first film. If you haven't seen the sequel yet, please don't waste your money, seriously!
11. It makes no sense at all when of four teenagers who came to meet John Young at his house, three of them go to get Art Jenkins (whose crappy car broke down in the film). What? Why does it take three teenagers to go get Art, and leave the religious guy Philip alone with John Young (who is now unconscious because they tasered him to the ground, and he hit his head on a rock)? That scene is utterly non-plausible in real life! If anything, they would have split up into two groups of two, or one of them drive to get Art. 
12. While duck-taped to a chair, John Young tells Philip that there is no character of the “Antichrist” in the Holy Bible, which is a bold-faced lie. What saith the Scripture? 2nd Thessalonians 2:3-4, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” The Bible clearly says that the “Man of Sin” is coming, aka, The Antichrist, Who is the Beast, who opposes everything that pertaineth to God, who will literally stand in the future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and claim to be God on earth (Read Revelation chapter 13, which is all about the coming Beast and his sidekick, the False Prophet). My point here is that there is doctrinal heresy in both films, especially the second. Richard Schenkman gives the impression that the films are harmless, but for an unsaved person who doesn't not know the truth of God's Word, such distortions of the truth DO mislead some people further away from the Gospel (2nd Corinthians 4:3-4). Proof of what I say is testimony given by Ellen Crawford (who I think is beautifully attractive by the way, as a woman for her age, who plays the Christian lady “Edith” in both films). In the extra Blu-ray features about the making of the first film, Ellen says that in real life, a Christian man came up to her and thanked her for defending the Christian faith in the first film. That man's faith was shaken by the film, but her role in the film calmed him. That proves the power of the media (films, books, news, magazines, internet, et cetera)! Anyway, there is a literal Antichrist person coming!
13. The FBI coming to Art's door at the end was not a good ending in my humble opinion. If I had written the sequel, I would have brought back all the cast members from the first film. I would have started the film with Art insatiably curious about their old friend John Oldman (without the weirdo purple pants), and then he would have contacted Dan, or bumped into him somewhere, and they would both exchange thoughts about John's whereabouts, and if he is really is 14,000 years old. Then they would contact the others and start searching for John, whom they would find relatively quickly within the first half of the film, and continue their dialogue. I wouldn't let them find John right away. The beginning thrill of the movie would be the hunt for John, who would be working under an alias at another college. They had that idea right in the sequel, but the film's atmosphere is all horribly wrong. If scripted properly, it would be wonderful. Hey, as the old business slogan says—DON'T CHANGE WHAT WORKS! Or as some would say—IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT! That is the fatal mistake of moviemakers, always thinking the audience wants something new! They don't! Simply put, the sequel is woefully lacking of class. It's awful. They changed what worked in the first film, for some odd reason. I think it was because they only had $100,000 to make the first film, and a week to record it all, and kept everything simple, that made it work so well. When they had millions of dollars to spend a decade later, and were spoiled, they totally ruined the sequel.
14. I think the teens breaking into John's home to steal his books (to prove that he is thousands of years old) is really lame. Books don't prove anything. If anything, I would have had Art or Dan secretively obtain John's DNA somehow, so Harry (played by John Billingsley in the first film) could test it, as he wanted to do in the original movie. That would have played much better into a science-fiction movie. They could have done a lot of great stuff with some lab tests. John said in the first movie that he had a fear of being locked in a lab for 1,000 years while doctors did testing on him. That would have been a great sequel to follow through on some of that threat becoming a reality, and John running from it. I can think of all sorts of great ideas for a sequel, which is ten times better than the junk they produced in the second film. I mean no offense, I was just really disappointed when I saw the much-anticipated sequel. What a major let down! I am certain that the original cast members, deep in their hearts, feel the same (but I doubt if they would ever say it to their producer Richard Schenkman). I say that kindly. Like Richard says in the film extras, “It's a big world!” I'm sure some poor souls actually enjoy the second film, but I hate it with a passion! I love the first film.
15. In the sequel, John says that he is now finally aging for some reason, which was bad scripting. It is obvious why they included that in the script, because John is actually aging in real life. A much better idea would have been for John to have been caught by scientists, put into a lab against his will, and then they mess with his biology that triggers the aging process. That would be plausible, but to just start growing old (after 14,000 years of not again) really ruined the second film. What were they thinking? I hope some of my ideas will help them make a better third film. Since I love science-fiction, I have a creative mind, and I can think of many cool things they can do with this caveman concept. Why didn't they get ideas from their fans? Let the fans make suggestions. I mean, after all, they're the ones that you're making the films for, right? Just a thought from a humble nobody who loves a good film. If I were to make a sequel, I would divide the film into four sections. It would begin with Art and Dan meeting and talking about John's whereabouts and intriguing claims of not aging. The second section of the film would be the hunt for John. I would bring Harry, Edith and the other available cast members into the hunt. The third section would be Art and Dan (and Harry and the others) finding John captive in a military laboratory somewhere being experimented on, now aging from the process. So they go to rescue him, and while on the run continue and expand their dialogue from the first movie. The film would end with John retreating into the mountains to pursue his caveman roots (which they did use some in the sequel when Harry brought John supplies). Unfortunately, the FBI ending just didn't fit at all and ruined the film. The two most important parts of a movie are the beginning and the ending—the beginning because it sets the viewer's mindset for the rest of the film; and the ending because it leaves a final thought in the viewer's mind, which in my humble opinion should always give closure to the audience. We are left wondering what happened to John and Philip, which suggests another follow-up film (it is a lousy ending).
16. In the horrible sequel, two of John's female teenage students are talking in the school. One says to the other female that John “has a nice ass.” That's just low-class script and lowers the quality of the film, using potty talk.
17. I thought the caveman scene at the beginning on the sequel, where John is making fire with sticks and dried grass, was unnecessary. It is obvious that the film's writer wanted to create in the viewer's mind a link to John and his caveman roots, but the first film already did that very well. Recaps of the first film is the best way to go, to establish John's cavemen origin (which they used a bit, but went over-the-top with the fire scene). It didn't ruin the film, but I thought it was a distraction from the film.
18. Toward the end of the film, while Philip has John Young ducktaped to a chair, John says that “there are many paths to the light” (downplaying the Biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven - John 14:6). John Young says that “the path is more important than the goal,” and we should strive to bring Heaven down to earth right now. Philips is correct by telling John that his advice is “liberal theology nonsense!” Interestingly, while debating with Philip, John contends that because there are umpteen different versions of the Bible, how do we know which one to believe? I do agree 100% with that contention. God's curse is upon all these modern Bible perversions! John further says to young Philip concerning the Holy Bible—“It's a book written by people!” Folks, this is much more than a mere movie toying with a cute science-fiction story. This is hardcore blasphemy against the holy God of the King James Bible, attacking the very foundation of Christianity! The truth is that there are hundreds of millions of hellbound people who think this way, constantly claiming that the Bible is a mere manmade book. Such a statement needs to be qualified, but they never do! The Holy Bible is no mortal book. The Scriptures were given to mankind in a very unique way, proving its divine origin. God spoke His Word to approximately 40 different men who penned His Words, over a period of 1,500 years of history. These men came from all different types of backgrounds (varying education, ethnicity, language, culture, wealth, social class and holiness). No other book in existence can make such a claim! Clearly, any honest person would have to concede that the Bible is no mere mortal book. The theories set forth by the movies Man From Earth and it sequel are ungodly to the core! I speak this as a born-again Christian. From a secular point of view, the first movie is superb but the second movie is poorly scripted and made!
19. At the very end of the movie, the FBI agent questioning Art Jenkins at his home says that many crimes keep appearing, having witnesses who keep placing John (under his various aliases) at the scene of “sick, twisted stuff, nightmares” (crimes). This is a strange twist in the whole theme of the two movies, which I think ruins the sequel completely. In a deeper occult meaning, by claiming throughout the film series that John is really Jesus Christ, they are implying that Jesus is a twisted “serial killer.”
20. I think they made a big mistake by not bringing back Tony Todd, who did a great job in the first film.

David Lee Smith clearly appears older in the sequel (thus disproving the caveman theory if anybody is actually gullible enough to believe such nonsense about living for thousands of years). Romans 6:23a, “For the wages of sin is death.”

In closing, if you are reading this, I encourage you to become a Christian if you are not one already. To the heathen unsaved person, Christianity appears as just another one of thousands of belief options. In the sequel, John Young corrects a statement in class made by his student Philip that he “KNOWS” Christianity is true. John says that we can only say that “we believe” (by faith), but we can only say for certain that we “KNOW” if something is a proven fact. I agree with that philosophy 100%. I do not KNOW that Jesus is the Son of God, the Savior, deity incarnate (in the flesh). I can only say that I have faith in what the Holy Bible says. The Bible agrees with this teaching.

1st John 1:7-9, “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.”

Yes, I believe that Jesus is the only Savior (Who died in the cross for our sins, was buried, and bodily resurrected the third day), and I hope for your eternal sake that you do to my dear reader. Thank you for reading this.

END OF ARTICLE

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness! | Believe The Gospel